DTIC ADA135551: Soviet Navy Submarine Rescue, Lifting, and Salvage Ships (Ubootrettungsschiffe, Hebeschiffe und Bergeschiffe der Sowjetmarine),

ZiD-fll35 551 SOVIET NOW SUBMARINE RESCUE LIFTING AND SALVAGE SHIPS 1/1

(UBOOTRETTUNGSSCHI. . (U> NAVAL INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT \l

CENTER WASHINGTON DC TRANSLATION D. . S BREVER
UNCLASSIFIED 13 OCT 83 NISC-TRANS-7179 F/G 13/10 NL

MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART

NATIONAL BUREAU Of STAHDAN0S-1963-A

(

NAVAL INTKUKMNCK SUPPORT CENTER

TRANSLATION DIVISION NISC-62
4301 Sultland Road
Washington, D.C.

K

%

TITLE:

TRANSLATION

SOVIET NAVY SUBMARINE RESCUE, LIFTING
AND SALVAGE SHIPS

UBOOTRETTUNGSSCHIFFE, HEBESCHIFFE UND
BERGESCHIFFE DER SOWJETMAR INE

AUTHOR: SIEGFRIED BREYER
TRANSLATED BY: 9093

SOURCE: SOLDAT UND TECHNIK. NO. 5, 1983,

PP. 256-261. GERMAN

DTIC

lELECTE
DEC 9 1963

I

NtSC TRANSLATION NO 7179

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A

Approved lot public roleoMl I ® ® ^ ^ 06

Distribution Unlimited

I

SOVIET NAVY SUBMARINE RESCUE, LIFTING, AND SALVAGE SHIPS

[Breyer, Siegfried; Ubootrettungsschiffe, Hebeschiffe und Bergeschiffe der
Sowjetmarine; Soldat und Technik, No. 5/1983; pp. 256-261; German]

The larger a navy is, the more it is present in the large oceans /2 56

and in distant sea areas, and all the more important for it to become
those components which under the collective term "logistics" provide
the means necessary in special cases for their resupply and assis¬
tance. In that context, quite a special role falls to the rescue
services. They include, to name only a few, submarine salvage ships,
lifting ships, and fire boats. They perform their service in the
shadow of the far more visible combat units, for in the international
literature they both regrettably and undeservedly live out an exist¬
ence about which hardly anything has ever been written. Our veteran
navy associate Siegfried Breyer takes a look at how things are in
the naval rescue and salvage services in the Soviet Union. He first
features the existing material in his article. At the end of this
contribution, which is in several sections, he finally summarizes
the overall capability of the Soviet rescue and salvage service.

Therefore, light is cast upon a still extensively unknown chapter,
which we hope may be of some use for our readers.

Part 1. Submarine Salvage Ships

In the history of submarines, the development of highly specialized
submarine salvage ships is solidly ensconced, although their number from
the beginning to the present has remained very small and 's distributed over
just a few navies. Apparently that was (and still is) due to the confident
attitude of many navies that they remain immune even to submarine accidents
and anyway it is cheaper to call on civilian rescue services for that kind
of work if ever, counter to expectation, such an accident happened--?n any
case cheaper than maintaining one or more such ships.

The beginnings of this ship type go back to imperial Germany of the
pre-war period. In the course of the submarine construction, then getting
under way, funds for such a ship were made available early on, which,
begun in March 1907, was able to be delivered as early as March 1908. It
bore the name VULCAN and was a double-hulled (catamaran) ship displacing
about 2500 t. Specifically, it consisted of two pontoon hulls arranged
parallel to each other at a distance of 6.50 m which were rigidly connected
with each other fore and aft with braces. On it was erected a hoist, whose
lifting capacity was 500 t. Shortly before the outbreak of war, a second,
somewhat larger such ship, CYCLOP, was begun whose lifting capacity was
doubled, to 1000 t. The second power which turned to the construction of such
ships was Russia. In the course of the "small shipbuilding program" of 23
June 1912, the funds were used for just three units, each one for the Baltic
Sea, the Black Sea, and the Far East. Of course, only one of them managed

^Numbers in right margins indicate pagination in the original text.

I

I

4

I

to be built, VOLKHOV*, for the world war about to break out soon after

^Besides Germany and Russia, one each such ship was built in Italy and
in the Netherlands (for Spain).

brought a halt to further plans.

VOLKHOV was built in St. Petersburg (present-day Leningrad) at the
Putilov Shipyard, which was renamed the Marti Shipyard after the Bolshevik
Revolution and for some years has again borne its original name, Admiralty
Shipyard. It was designed and conceived on the engineering model of the
German VULCAN; it, too, was a double-hulled ship, but the displacement
and the dimensions were somewhat larger, so that the lifting capacity was
also able to be increased. VOLKHOV had twice the capacity of VOLCAN, that
is, 1000 t within two hrs from a depth of 60 m.

This ship, renamed KOMMUNA after the Revolution, is still in existence
today. Next November it will be 60 years since it was launched. It
departed the Baltic Sea for the first time In 1950, when it sailed to the
Vlissingen in Holland, where it underwent a general overhaul lasting more
than one year. In the summer of 1951, it returned to its home port, Kron¬
stadt, but then a few years later was transferred to the Black Sea, where
it is still being kept in readiness for rendering assistance within its
capabilities; in any case within NATO its existence is still being
reckoned with, although very limited performances can be expected, owing
to its great age. This ship was not prominent either in the two world
wars or in the years between and after. Especially have there ever been
no data so far on its raising operations and its successes in them. It is
probably certain that a ship like KOMMUNA is not used alone to raise lost
submarines; with its lifting capacity collaboration in raising surface
ships is also probable. It probably played a not unimportant role especially
in removing wrecks after the second world war in the Gulf of Finland and the
sea areas farther westward.

The primary mission originally assigned to such special ships of raising
submarines was able to have a priority claim only as long as the weight of
the distressed submarine corresponded to the lifting capacity. The specific
water depth in which the object to be raised places another restriction.
Generally, the employment of such special ships had to be limited to the
inshore waters and in any case to the adjacent seas, within which there is
no need to penetrate to greater depths.

Today, not the raising of a lost submarine, but the rescue of its crew.

Is a primary consideration. In the first place, the submarines of today
are considerably larger and heavier, and in the second, as the experience
of the post-war period shows, they are being lost in deep waters rather than
In the generally shallow waters off the coast. Today it involves rather to
come to the aid of the crews In the sunken submarines. But that requires
a substantially different concept of such rescue ships, which need a complete¬
ly different type of equipment for that purpose. Of course, such ships should

Captions to photos on next page: Fig. 1. Seventy years old and still
operational. The submarine raising ship KOMMUNA dating back to the Czarist
era, with its characteristic hoisting gear construction. At the bow it is
clear that this is a catamaran-type. However, a much more broadly held
opinion is that the KOMMUNA is no longer stationed in the Baltic Sea, but
in the Black Sea.

Fig. 2. Submarine salvage ship SS-35 of the T-58/ASR Class, a former
T-58-Class seagoing mine hunter.

Fig. 3- PRUT-Class submarine salvage ship. Clearly visible are the
two rescue chambers on the port side.

Fig. 4. INDIA-Class rescue submarine, mother ship of two submersibles
which are stowed abaft the conning tower.

Fig. 5. ELBRUS. Peak of the Soviet development in this ship category.
Between the forward mast and the stack can be seen the two hoists,
presumably for lowering and hoisting the submersibles.

J u

I*, i • 1

.J

- •• •-«

x , A

V..!

-P**1 •VilVhh >.rr

Aeeession For

HTIS GRAH ~
DTIC TAB
Unannounced
Justification.

Dlstrlbut i on/^m Pit<
Availability Codes
Aval^ and/or
Diat Special

'X 'WttJtLAGZifjZ.-iJr?,

Reproduced from
best evailable copy.

collaborate In such operations, but this
but one of several.

is no longer their primary mission.

/258

After the end of the second world war, more than a decade NAT0
before the series of new submarine salvage ships of a new class
designation ASR, for Submarine Rescue Ship derives from the designat
;n the Soviet Union. Progression in size was in steps, eac
oreceding is JoHowed by a la?ger one, so that the equipment became

Steadily more extensive, which in turn caused the l
rarlv in the eighties a peak was apparently reached, as we sna
exp^ai n .^Because the* sharoty growing need for such ships was not initially

k

mam

jL

to be met adequately by new constructions for the numerical strength of
the submarine force, ships appearing suitable for the purposes were
converted to ASRs. Therefore the choice fell on a number of seagoing
minehunters; with that choice the Soviets were following the same path as
the Americans in the early twenties, when they obtained their first sub¬
marine rescue ships by converting minehunters.

Bel ow we shall consider in greater detail the development extending over
more than three decades.

The Period of Interim Solutions

The rebuilding of the navy which got underway after the end of the war
initially brought great growth to the submarine force. With the increase
in the number of submarines, however, grew also the danger of accidents,
but they were in no way equipped to handle them. An attempt was made to
relieve the shortage of submarine rescue ships initially by utilizing
captured ships. Thus the Luftwaffe crash boat HANS ALBRECHT WEDEL, which
fell victim to a Soviet air attack on 8 April 1945 in Danzig Bay, was
raised, and after repairs, was placed in service as the submarine salvage
ship KHIBNY and assigned to the Northern Fleet.

To meet the turbulent growth of the Soviet submarine force in the fifties
and sixties, a series of 14 units, which started out as T-58-C1ass seagoing
minehunters, were converted into submarine salvage ships in Leningrad
starting in 1 96 1-62 . In NATO, this series was initially designated the
VALDAY Class, after the ship identified first; however, today it is carried
as the T-58 (ASR) Class. From the engineering point of view they correspond
to the predecessor T-43 (ARS) Class, to which we shall return later. What
was still lacking in that class, the T-58 (ASR) Class had as standard
equipment on board, and that is a rescue chamber. It is sited on the port
side of the midship section, where it is ready for use below a davit. Also
present are decompression chambers, pumps, winches, line and wire reels,
as well as a shearlegs crane for unshipping heavy gear like buoys, supply
lines, etc. Those units, now only 13 in number (11, according to Jane 1 s
Fighting Ships 1982-83), after one ship was transferred to India as early
as 1971, are still performing their service today, one of them, the ex-
GIDROLOG operating in the Pacific, is serving as an ELINT-SIGINT ship. The
names of only five ships are known, while the rest carry an alphanumeric
designation beginning with the letters SS, like the T-43 (ARS)-Class units
already discussed. The following ships are involved:

Name

Alphanumeric

Designation

Station

VALDAY

•

Baltic Fleet

KHIBINY

■ -

Northern Fleet

KAZBEK

-

Black Sea Fleet

ZANGEZUR

-

Black Sea Fleet

ex GIDROLOG

-

Pacific Fleet

m

SS-30

Baltic Fleet

m

SS-35

Baltic Fleet

5

Name

Alphanumeric
Designat ion

Stat ion

SS-38

Baltic Fleet

SS-53

Baltic Fleet

-

s$-i»o

Northern Fleet

•

SS-47

Northern Fleet

-

SS-48

Northern Fleet

-

SS-50

Black Sea Fleet

Another ship, SS-55, was transferred to India in 1971.

The way it looks today, it must be concluded that this class is approach-
in the end of its existence. Its phasing out during this decade must be
expected.

The First New Constructions

In the year 1958, at the then Nosenko Shipyard in Nikolayev, was begun
the construction of a series of nine units of submarine rescue ships. Two
each of them entered service in I960 and 1961, and in the subsequent years
until 1966, one each year. This was given the NATO designation PRUT Class.
Their designs date back to shortly before the mid-fifties; therefore the
American CHANTICLEER Class (ASR 7-18) appears to have been the model.
Admittedly the latter has a smaller displacement and smaller dimensions,
but the external points of agreement are so profound that the "pedigree"
cannot be ignored. Accession of the PRUT Class began in I960, and the last
units entered service in 1966.

Those ships, barely 90 m long and over 13 m wide and displacing more than
2600 t, were given extensive equipment for rescue purposes, and are
additionally fitted out as tugs. Their maximal towing speed, with a 1 500- t
tow, is 11 kn. It has the following rescue equipment:

—a rescue observation bell for one man;

--a rescue chamber for three persons from a 60-m depth;

—a rescue chamber for three persons from a 200-m depth;

--two working caissons, and

—four large mooring buoys besides a number of marker buoys.

The two rescue buoys and the rescue observation bells are carried under
two davits sited on the side, the marker buoys are on chutes angled to
the side in pairs, the other buoys behind or between them, and the working
caisson, on the afterdeck. In addition, there are five to seven hoses to
fight ship fires.

During the seventies, the stowage of the large mooring buoys was altered:
until then they slid off In the longitudinal direction, so that they entered
the surface of the water with their end pieces. Therefore turbulence
probably occurred, so that they were easily thrown against the side. Under

6

the present method of stowage, they roll off and maintain the rolling
motion after striking the water, so that they are moved away from the ship,
and therefore cannot endanger it any more.

Only four of those ships have a name, and of the rest only alpha¬
numeric designations are known, all also beginning with "$S." The following
units are involved:

NAME ALPHANUMERIC STATION

DESIGNATION

ALTAY

_

Northern

Fleet

! BRESHTAU

ex MB-

11

Northern

Fleet ,

i VLADIMIR TREFOLEV

SS-87

Baltic Fleet i

| ZHIGULI

-

Pacific

Fleet

! •••

SS-44

Northern

Fleet

SS-21

(ex

MB-21)

Black Sea Fleet I

1 . . .

SS-26

(ex

MB-26)

Black Sea Fleet ;

...

SS-23

(ex

MB-23)

Pacific

Fleet

i '**

(

SS-83

Pacific

Fleet

From this table we see the points of concentration: the North Arctic
Ocean and the Pacific are assigned as the operations area for three ships
each, the Black Sea, for two ships, and the Baltic Sea, for only one. A
plausible ‘'care ratio" for the submarines in each of the four fleets cannot
be derived from it.* Therefore, there must be another distribution modulus

*Proceeding from the submarines existing in the separate fleets on
l January 1983, the following ratio would therefore result (number of
submarines total/ number of submarines falling to one PRUT-Class ship):
Northern Fleet - 184/61 , Pacific Fleet 137/45, Baltic Fleet 80/80, Black
Sea Fleet 64/32.

which does not absolutely need to have anything to do with the number of
submarines in any specific case. This is also enlightening, for ships like
those of the PRUT Class are not intended exclusively for the rescue service
in case of submarine accidents; for those they certainly have special
equipment, but they are for the benefit of all ships in distress, if they /26
are In a favorable position to them. Moreover, those ships, if they have no
salvage tasks to perform, are used as tugs, in order to work them to
capac i ty .

On a New Path: Submarine Rescue Submarines

Early in the eighties, a new Soviet submarine type, whose NATO type
designator was established as SSAG (for "Submarine, Auxiliary"), became
known in the INDIA Class; these submarines can be compared in every respect
to the similarly fitted out American submarines HALIBUT (SSN 587) and HAWKBILL
(SSN 666), even if the latter are intended primarily for combat missions and

only sporadically carry a DSRV* submersible pickaback.

*D$RV * Deep Submergence Rescue Vehicle

Two units of this INDIA Class were built in far eastern Komsomol sk
at the Amur Shipyard and put into service in 1979 and 1980 (see Table 1).

In them the conning tower stands in a markedly forward position, abaft it
tha upper deck is visibly elevated and carried parallel to the waterline to
far aft. Inside that deck there are installed two trough-like bases in
tandem which each accommodate one smail rescue vehicle about 12 m in length
and up to A m in breadth. Presumably for each of those deep submergence
vehicles there is a shaft- like connection with the mother submarine over
which they must sit. The personnel of the submergence vehicle could then
move over through corresponding locks. The units of the INDIA Class
presumably cruise to the operations area surfaced, for their hull is
apparently designed for surface cruising and they have conventional pro¬
pulsion. Once they arrive there, they dive to depth and uncouple the two
submergence vehicles, which they pick up after their rescue mission. They
are shippad aboard in the same manner; for that purpose there are white
markings forward and abaft of the t roughs as well as on the diving planes
mounted on each side of the conning tower as orientation aids in the dark
depths to assist them in engaging their holding devices.

There are still no detailed data of the on-board submersibles. More
than that, it can still not be stated what their exterior form reveals,
and this is lift la enough, owing to a lack of closa-up photos.

One fNDIA-Class submarine Is alraady with the Pacific Fleet; the other
was deployed in due course via the Northern Sea Route to the Northern Fleet.
For the transfer the stem was given a quite unseemly Ice cutter, while the
two submersiblevehicle troughs were covered with plates to prevent the
accumulation of ice, by which the trim could have been Impaired.

Table 1. INDIA-Class Rescue Submarines

1

3

h

1*77 - IK* »:

|ftV#*S*a-jyr»9

*»««

(t

«®n

Mr

t If

«*•»

f lt.»

T01 »r

j***W*P

ft

DM • IV

U *»3 J-

| •#*wt AtMt*

ISOM .

U Stir**nv9-

m

•

JVVitto-

ftvt 1*1

0.

UfcOOW

1 K«pt oducya >ro"»

I b«»» »vfat>j«__Sg£fcjy

^♦^,'^Hhbar • b# building period c. <I*olac' ..it, surface d. Displacement.
gypi**** *• kOA f. D#am g. Draft . . tginas I. Speed, surface 8. Speed,
■NPPdfiPdl b. Craw I. Armament m. Equipment n. Torpedo tubes (?) o. 2 sub-

Probably some submarine accidents and also the experience on the American
side led to the decision to build such rescue submarines (certainly they
are mother ships for rescue submarines). Not to be precluded (at least it
should be taken into account) is the fact that the incident of the Americans
in the salvage of wreckage of a GOLF-Class nuclear submarine lost in the
summer of 1968 in the Pacific between Hawaii and Vladivostok provided the
actual background for that development. As we know, in the summer of 197k
the Americans had located the wreck lying in 6000 m of water, and managed
to salvage parts of it. It would therefore be conceivable that it was
decided on the Soviet side for any future cases to destroy with explosive
charges a no-longer-salvageable wreck so completely that salvage by some
other power is no longer productive. The on-board small submersibles are
technically fully capable of placing explosive charges on a wreck carefully
enough to assure its complete destruction. But even further: In cases of
where a sunken submarine or other ship of other nations is lying in a
favorable location will perhaps salvage operations such as the Americans
conducted with the GOLF wreck be carried out?

Peak of Development: ELBRUS

In December 1 98l , a new Soviet auxiliary attracted the attention of the
authorities when its lead ship ELBRUS passed through the Turkish Straits
coming from the Black Sea. Designated as BLK-AUX-1 Class* in NATO until

*BLK-AUX - Black Sea Auxiliary

classed as a submarine tender,* it seemed to represent a logical member of

*CF. Soldat und Technik. No. 7/1982; p. kOO. The statements there have
been overtaken by this article and therefore are no longer valid.

a development begun in the fifties with the DON-Class tenders. Photographic
interpretation provided some unexpected surprises: it was not a submarine
tender, but a special submarine rescue ship which is obviously intended for
the inhospitable regions in Northern Europe and in the Far East. Where
the strategic nuclear submarines are stationed is apparently expected to
have a greater frequency of submarine accidents, but also with more diffi¬
cult conditions for rendering assistance. For those waters the Soviets needed
a type which owing to its size is seaworthy and tough at the same time,
which has a great enough endurance, has special equipment designed for those
latitudes for its missions and can be operated for a rather long time irre¬
spective of the weather to the greatest possible degree. One of the most
important conditions in that respect is that these ships can cope with the
ice conditions prevailing there. From that point of view, we envision a
series of new features architecturally and in equipment. Thus the skin
appears to be dimensioned especially thick and it is also longitudinally
reinforced by welded-on sections (which probably serve as fenders). In
conjunction with the typical icebreaker bow anchors, there are also two heavy
stern anchors present; the latter are in recessed hawses in the stern loof.

In order to get clear of the rudder and the screws, projecting guides angled
toward the stern are installed below the stern hawses. With those four
anchors, the ship is said to be able to be maintained in position at the
accident site in order to be able to conduct the rescue work with the great¬
est possible precisions.

10

Reproduced from
bett eveileble copy.

Table 2. Soviet Submarine Rescue Ships

Class

KQVMJNA

T IS 'ASR1

PRJT

i

E. SR JS

A ruth*

1

6

!

1 1 - 1 «r \J

BajDanooe

1913- 15

l5:-f - 5c

*

:-*• -t:

Stan3a'3,era-»-gjng itsj

at:

72!

i

yy.

f msatrve'ar*".;..'^ its)

314C-

i

2Z 50C

ur-e- » es imj

9C2

67 7

66 9

i

1-1 £

Brc.te (m;

204

9 :

13 4

j

r

mourns’ |

se

23

4 :•

6?

Anviet

DM

DM

DM

V

j i - t '•€ -

Wei««r.

‘

?

<

1

l

kvw (PS*.

E3C r.wo

?95C ;400C

JWC 6000

Gfric*!*- “3 ;•« : inn;

10C

16 C

is :

B-f — s::“ it

e;

lie

20C

1* nfl|

i7>:t

i <X If

Btsau'-i-'a

1C*

60

i?:

Be*a*f"jns

q wn

i

ktne

q

a

• t *t

AuS'wSiung

f he:***rk

♦

pf <t

► • * w : . :*■*

1u' -300!

Cfc-r t' .

!

9 ‘

fci'r.'ne'

_

1

a. Number b. Building period c. Standard displacement d. Full-load
displacement (t) e. LOA (m) f. Molded breadth (m) g. Draft, standard
(m) h. Engine i. Shafts j. Power in kW (hp) k. Spped (kn) 1. Fuel

(5) m. Range nm/kn) n. Crew o. Armament p. Equipment q. none

r. Hoist for 1000 t

s. Diving gear t. Rescue observation chamber u. 1 (+L under

Decompression chambers 2 rescue chambers construction)

1 rescue chamber k large mooring buoys

Fire extinguishing equipment
v. Gas turbines w. Small submersibles

Diving gear
Rescue gear

Fire extinguishing equipment

Between the forward and the after mast there is installed a hoisting
mechanism. It consists of two portal cranes in tandem (with apparently /261
longitudinally extensible crane tackle), which can be extended about 8 m
to the side), making it probable that they reach about 5 m beyond each side
of the ship. The forward hoisting mechaism works on the starboard side,
and the after mechanism, on the opposite side.

The deck superstructure accommodating this hoisting mechanism has a
base width in that area which corresponds to about the width of the foot
of the stack. That means that the fixed, that is, the top part of the
hoisting mechanism, covers about m of the upper deck. Under it on the
upper deck run the rails which lead out from the deck superstructure be¬
ginning close abaft the middle of the stack. The deck superstructure has a
width of about 19 m at its base and a good 15 m in its upper area. Toward
the front it is kept closed on each side by a two-section (possibly folding)
door. The space behind it apparently serves as a hangar for heavy rescue
equipment to be handled with the aid of the hoisting mechanism, submersibles
or small submarines would therefore come to mind. It is presumed that there
is a hoisting mechanism inside that hangar by means of which this equipment
and the submersible can be placed in the desired specific position. This
hoisting mechanism is probably Installed on the hangar deck; the two easily
visible stiffening ribs which lead around this superstructure at a distance

of about 8 m point to that. The device (or submersible) housed inside can
probably be placed on a cradle with the aid of the (interior) hoisting
mechanism which rolls on its rails to below the (outside) hoisting mechanism
and is then lowered by it. If small submarines are actually carried in that
hangar, it would not be any surprise. Such craft appear recently to be
playing a prominent role in Soviet sea rescue, as has already probably been
made clear by the INDIA-Class example.

What at f irst looked like fenders under the hoisting mechanism must now
be attributed to the rescue and salvage equipment; it is a cylindrical body
apparently closed at both ends, probably a tank or buoys for marking the acci¬
dent site. Five of them are located below the hoisting mechanism, another
three lined up are farther aft on the port side close beside the helicopter
hangar. Aft, also on the port side, a lattice-work frame about 18 m in
length is installed which, resting on a high rotating base, is similar to
a deck crane, but is certainly no such thing. At first it appeared that it
was some sort of installation for fighting shipboard fires, perhaps a long-
range fire hose, but now it appears as though this frame serves to assist
divers to descend and to surface and to guide them safely through turbulence
at or just below the surface of the water. That frame can apparently be
extended about another 7 m in length, for one like it lies directly under
it on the upper deck.

Upon closer consideration, it is evident that both hangar and helicopter
platforms are separated from each other by a narrow, but deep space, and
therefore have no continuous connection with each other. That is established
after the opening of the hangar door, which does not swing to the side, but
folds down and therefore spans that space.

ELBRUS is also assigned a fire-fighting role. That becomes evident at
five positions distributed over the midship section each with one hose, two
on each side of the midship section and one abaft the stack along the
centerline. The life rafts, apparently Type PSN-10M, are for 400 men; this
safely exceeds the number of its own crew.

The absence of defensive armament does not in any way indicate that
ELBRUS will remain without it. There are four positions available, on on
each side of the after mast and two forward of the bridge complex, which are
probably wholly suited for installing conventional weapon systems, either
AK 230 AA(30 mm twin), ADMG 630 (30-mm Gatling), or quadruple SA-N-5s.

In summary, it can be said that ELBRUS by far probably represents the
largest and very probably also the most capable submarine rescue ship in the
world; its 19,000-t standard and 22,000-t full-load displacement and also
Its dimensions (see Table 2) are not exceeded by any ships with a similar
function. A second ship was launched by the same shipyard in 1 98 1 , and
will probably be operational before long. Possibly it is intended for the
Pacific Fleet, after it appears to be firmed up in the meantime that ELBRUS
is assigned to the Northern Fleet.